Christianity Is A Religion (Why This Is Good & Biblical)

     We have heard the statements before that go "Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship." I am not sure where it begins, but it does appear that Josh McDowell has said it once in his book, "More Than A Carpenter." However, I think more people have gotten this idea from a few pastors as well as especially a popular viral video on YouTube that was released on January 10, 2012 entitled Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. I myself was even influenced by this video as it sparked my flame even more in 2014 when I was attending college as a young Christian. I even picked up and read the book version entitled "Jesus Greater Than Religion." While I agree with the sympathy of trying to call out corrupt practices in certain churches, I think it is unbiblical and even unchristian like to say that Christianity is not a religion and that religion is bad. I will address various objections to religion after I address the one key bible verse that refutes this notion.

    Let's begin with scripture. Quoting from the KJV, we read the following in verses 26-27: "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." So we see clearly a negative description of religion, only to then be followed with a positive description of religion as something "pure" and "undefiled before God." Scripture clearly lays out that there is a religion God hates, but there's also a religion God loves. If you would suggest that Christians visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep themselves unspotted from the world, then you have described Christians practicing religion that is pure. So scripturally speaking, in plain words, Christianity has to be a religion on the basis of what it teaches and what Christians thereby practice.

    Some will probably then say all kinds of thing of what religion is, but define it in ways that do not fit the definition. Let's go over the definitions. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." Sounds like Christianity regarding beliefs and practices we have. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries defines it as "the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them, or in the teachings of a spiritual leader." Once again, sounds like Christianity. We believe God exists, we worship God and we affirm the teachings of our spiritual leader, Jesus Christ. I am sure you can try to find any other dictionary online or in book form and you will find various different definitions, most of which will agree with the ideas relayed in these two.

    Some might then put forth the argument that "Christianity is not a religion because it does not believe in worship in the church and it is a relationship without having leaders in charge." The problem with this is that Matthew 16:18 is a clear passage where Jesus builds his church upon the rock. We also see that there is leadership explicitly commanded in 1 and 2 Timothy regarding presbyters, elders, deacons, etc. in the New Testament. It would be awkward for this objection to remain one unless of course one removes those two epistles from their bible. Furthermore, this also proposes problem for the historic faith since pretty early in the 1st and 2nd century, we see leadership in the church with bishops and deacons who are well known in the church.

    Another popular objection is that "Christianity is not a list of rules to follow." Essentially the idea is that faith alone is all that is needed and that we should not focus on what is sin and therefore not try to do good works at all. Apart from this being a repeat of the classic Antinomianism heresy, this objection fails in that ignores again the teachings of the Bible. Jesus teaches in several places in the bible that we need to repent (Luke 13:3-5, Matthew 3:2). The Apostles even teach this after the likeness of Jesus. Furthermore, this then ignores the commands and rules we are obligated to follow in the Sermon on the Mount as well as the verses that lay out sin (Mark 7:21-23, Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Plus there is the most damning of verses in 1 John 3:4 which reads: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." Then we read in verses 6, 8 and 9 the following: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.... He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." This does not negate Justification by Faith Alone, but even remember that Ephesians 2:8-9 isn't verses that are alone. Read the very next verse that teaches "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

    One other common objection is that "Religion is about rituals without meaning and Christianity is not about rituals." This is failed automatically by the two common sacraments shared with every Christian out there: Baptism and The Lord's Supper. Both of these sacraments are directly ordained for us to perform by the Lord. Before I show these, let's talk about one thing some may call a ritual: going to church every Sunday morning. Act 20:7 speaks clearly of the apostles gathering to break bread and fellowship on the first day of the week (Sunday). 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 goes further with "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Hebrews 10:25 even suggests not to forsake the gathering together of the Christians. However, we are about to get even more deeper with a focus on the subject of the Baptism and Lord's Supper.

    Baptism is ordained in Matthew 28:19 with the words: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Christ commands us to baptize and even gives a formula for it. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 also gives us a better understanding here. "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." Furthermore, we see this is also baptism which "saves" us according to 1 Peter 3:20-21 in the context of discussing salvation via the work of Christ on the cross being similar to Noah in the ark: "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Even in Acts 22:16 we read of the urgency for baptism saying "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

    The Lord's Supper is ordained by the following in Matthew 26:26-28 which reads "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Elsewhere, we read the same similar command on repeat in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Furthermore, there are even commands on how not to participate in this sacrament in verses 17-22 and 27-34 as well as considerations that must be taken when doing a form of self-examination before the eating of the bread and wine. If it is not a big deal, then why does this sacrament and baptism receive such lengthy treatment in sacred scripture regarding the practice?

    Another objection you will hear often is that "Religion is all about trying to work to earn God's favor and search for God." This and a few other similar objections are based on caricatures which have no proof for this regarding Christianity as a religion doing this. We simply do good works because as the scriptures says in James 2:26 so clearly: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Furthermore, we don't seek after God. We all know God exists in some degree. Consider Romans 1:18-20 which reads that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." So we don't teach that we work to gain God's favor or to find him. We already are found by God and we found him, but we work as Christians in the religion to honor, praise and worship him. It is a sign of respect, submission and honor to God, which is commanded out of his covenant people in the church.

    To the one who thinks they shouldn't call Christianity a religion, I would advise you to really rethink of how you define religion. Christianity is a different religion from all the others. Instead of telling you to worship a God you cannot personally know or communicate to, Christianity is a religion where God is truly personal with you. Instead of doing works to earn and obtain salvation, Christianity is a religion which teaches you are justified by faith alone and works are what sanctify us after the fact as we obey what our God commands us to follow in our relationship. It is a religion in that we have our beliefs and practices centered around God and not centered around man. It is a pure and undefiled religion which we call Christianity and God honors this. Christianity is a religion and a good one. Amen.

A Triperspectival Approach to the Three-Legged Stool of Anglicanism

     The three-legged stool is a popular reference to the aspect in Anglicanism which refers to the supposed threefold sources of authority regarding doctrine and beliefs. These three sources are then said to be Scripture, Tradition & Reason. One supposed view of this comes from Richard Hooker in Book V (8.2) of his work entitled "Of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity": "What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience are due; the next whereunto, is what any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after this, the voice of the church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgements whatsoever." So while the stool analogy isn't used, this at least helps us see how it can be utilized.

    Some might however think there is a problem with this view. In an article from the July 26, 1998 article of The Living Church, we read the following from : "A sick paradigm has made its way into everyday Episcopal thinking. It comes pretending to be an ancient truth, but it's only a modern idea. It threatens some pillars of our Anglican and Episcopal identity. Maybe it even means to do so. I am referring to the spurious analogy of the "three-legged stool."... When tradition and reason (and "experience," for that matter) are elevated to be "complementary" to scripture, they, in fact, become competing standards. It's obviously that a Bible story cannot be equally "reasonable" and "miraculous." The definition of "miracle" involves something outside the grasp of human reason. When "reason" is raised to become an equal authority, the old test for truth (Is it scriptural?) is replaced by the new test: Is it reasonable?... "Tradition," as important as it is to Episcopalians, is another undeserving candidate to stand on equal footing with scripture... With the Episcopal Church more fractured than ever, this is no time to hide behind unhelpful paradigms. The hope for healing the church is in rediscovering our biblical foundation... As we humbly acknowledge the authority of God's word and seek to bend our lives to fit its message, he will show us his plan and lead us to the Savior. There is no hope for the sick paradigm of the three-legged stool, and no use hanging on to it."

    My goal with this article is to put forth a form of Triperspectivalism into the three legged stool and with the image shown above, we will approach this from the observation of Scripture as the Normative Perspective, Tradition as the Situational & Reason as the Existential. I will expound on why each falls under the individual perspective and thus why there will be the necessity of each being dependent on each other in order to prove that this approach of the three-legged stool theology can be utilized while still affirming a Sola Scriptura approach in our theology. All I need to demonstrate is that scripture can be considered the only ultimate source of authority for doctrine and practice while yet being able to affirm the validity of the other three authorities. Let us begin.

    Scripture as a normative perspective, just to remind people, tells us that scripture essentially sets the standards or norms in a given topic. So when it comes to our doctrinal beliefs and practices, we start with the perspective that scripture what ultimately sets the standard at this point. While we might rely on the other two perspectives as well, Scripture is shown it's necessity and ultimate place in this topic by becoming what we must go to in order to know what God demands/requires out of us via the divinely inspired scriptures. Yet we also have to apply this authority to the other two. Hence, we shall now begin our focus on the situational and existential.

    Tradition, as the situational perspective, becomes the focus of the "facts" or "historical data" in the world. When we observe tradition, we shouldn't blindly accept all traditions. Especially if they do not match up with scripture. It should be tradition that is compatible and therefore in uniformity with the scriptures. This is necessary especially for doctrine because we shouldn't expect to follow something of novelty in tradition. For example, the subject of Open Theism becomes a talking point and several proponents or advocates of it will admit that it's a brand new doctrine to be introduced into the church because of purely scripture only authority. The problem with this is in the fact that asking how come no early church father or early church writer talked of even the doctrinal concepts in each. Same can be said for Molinism, which at least gets more bonuses here compared to Open Theism. While Molinism's views of predestination and free will can be found in the tradition, Middle Knowledge is something foreign to the early church data until it's founder, Luis De Molina, created it. Thus this brings up a point of tradition being utilized to observe the data and history of beliefs and practice.

    Reason, as the existential perspective, is a tough one to explain and justify. We do not want to be guilty of submitting to subjectivism and be opposed to objective truth with a Sola Scriptura mindset in this model. The easy way to explain this is to affirm that we at least utilizes our senses whenever we engage with both the natural and the supernatural to a degree. While we cannot see God, we can still feel and experience him in certain ways. Especially in terms of the outward signs we experience along with the inward graces of the Sacraments. However, we must at least submit to the scriptures in how we utilize them and how they furthermore validate our use of reasoning in light of what God says in scripture about our ability to use our senses and reason to glorify God.

    With this in mind, we start with the interaction between the perspectives. Scripture of course is considered an authority, especially the ultimate/normative one, in the support by the tradition of the early church as well as in our reasoning with the perspective. In other words, it helps self verify it's own claims via the data and our experience with it. Tradition is considered an authority by scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2) and it also stands that we experience and utilize reason to validate the traditions in which we are to judge yet follow (especially when it comes to discerning true tradition from heretical traditions). Furthermore, reason is validated by scripture (James 3:17, Isaiah 1:18, 1 Thessalonians 5:21) and has been verified as a means in which the tradition encourages us to utilize reason ever since the earliest days of the church.

    If we attempt to utilize this particular understanding of the three perspectives of Christian authority for doctrines and practices, we can be assured we are holding to the traditional Anglican view when it comes to this three-legged stool understanding and claim to follow the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura in the church. So, next time you hear the claim about the dangers of the three-legged stool approach to doctrinal beliefs and practices, just remember to let them view it in perspectives. A triperspectival set of perspectives.

If Pelagianism Wasn't Truly Heretical, Then Christianity Becomes Unreliable

     The title of this article might seem like a bit of a clickbait tactic, but the argument is true regarding the subject of this essay. I have started to notice that there is an increase in favor for Pelagianism these days in light of the Calvinist vs Provisionist debates on the internet these days, especially after the James White and Leighton Flowers debate from 2015. Not because I believe Provisionism is Pelagianism, but because channels like Idol Killer and Provisionist Perspective (two YouTube Channels promoting Provisionism) would suggest that the whole controversy was founded upon a lie and thus making the councils (especially the Council of Ephesus) wrong for condemning Pelagius as a heretic. They will then resort to saying that it was all started by Augustine making rumors and lies, which led to the eventual condemnation via the church councils and the bishops. So much to the point that several scholars have started coming up in support of this thesis.

    I will support the point here that if somebody wants to argue this way, then they are essentially going to be causing doubt not just to the one instance of a church consensus agreed heresy that was thoroughly examined via the ecumenical council as well as other councils in the past, but that it will cause doubt to the rest of the councils as well as to the reliability of the canon. The argument will stem from showing how some similar accusations of "lying" and "straw manning" will be found among the Arian controversy as well as to point out that the official declaration of the New Testament canon decided via the councils of Laodicea, Hippo and Carthage would be therefore unreliable if we can't trust the ecumenical council that decided Pelagius' status in the church.

    Before we get into the subject of the matter, let's at least show where an ecumenical council has condemned Pelagius via the 4th Canon of Ephesus: "If any of the clergy should fall away, and publicly or privately presume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius, it is declared just by the holy Synod that these also should be deposed." Celestius is one who is said to have been a disciple of Pelagius and was one who helped initiate the controversy into the public. So it isn't too far to assert that Pelagius was holding to the same theology as his disciple. Furthermore, during his later years, Pelagius resided with Nestorius for refuge after the charge of heresy from other Church Fathers towards him. This is why several note that the 4th Canon of Ephesus is what condemned Pelagius where he was condemned for associating with the heretic Nestorious and his theology was condemned due to it's association with Celestius' theology being condemned by not just the Council of Carthage, but also the Council of Ephesus as the canons were in agreed consensus by 200 bishops of the church.

    Now what makes this condemnation a big thing? It was because it was the result of an ecumenical council, which is defined as the following by Phillip Schaff in pages xi and xii of "The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers: Volume XIV":

"a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world... The Ecumenical Councils claimed for themselves an immunity from error in their doctrinal and moral teaching, resting such claim upon the promise of the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost.  The Council looked upon itself, not as revealing any new truth, but as setting forth the faith once for all delivered to the Saints, its decisions therefore were in themselves ecumenical, as being an expression of the mind of the whole body of the faithful both clerical and lay, the sensus communis of the church.  And by the then teaching of the church that ecumenical consensus was considered free from the suspicion of error, guarded, (as was believed,) by the Lord’s promise that the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church.  This then is what Catholics mean when they affirm the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils."

    Therefore, we can at least understand why it is that the church holds this decision in such high regard to the point that not only the Western Churches condemn Pelagius, but also that the Eastern Orthodox Church (whom reject Original Sin) also consider Pelagius to be a heretic and therefore Pelagianism is also declared a heresy under the Eastern Church. We must then ask the question regarding the Christian Church as it relates to the state of this controversy: If Pelagius was not a heretic and this was a lie promoted by Augustine, then how can we trust the other church councils and history of the faith? This is a question I certainly wish to propose to our friends who choose to reject Augustine and favor Pelagius as a supposed saint.

    The Christian Church has maintained an affirmation of the Bible as the ultimate authority in terms of doctrinal matters of belief, but one question some do not ask is the matter of how do they know what books belong in the canon of scripture? How do they know the epistles of James or 1 John belong in the Bible? How do they address the topic of the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books discussion among several of the various branches of Christianity? My argument, that I plan to write further on, is via the Triperspectival Approach to the canon which borrows based off the work by both John M. Frame as well as Michael J. Kruger. However, this protestant approach to the canon, as well as others, will all have to rely on the usage of the history of the biblical canon in the church history. We see that these councils that discussed the canon were the Council of Rome (382), Council of Hippo (393), and Council of Carthage (397). While there is debate therefore on the Apocrypha being utilized in the canon, we then have to ask about the New Testament.

    If Pelagius was wrongly condemned at the Ecumenical Council, how can we trust the judgement of lesser councils such as the Hippo and Carthage when it comes to the New Testament books being discussed? If one is willing to dismiss them and argue for the New Testament books being inspired because they certainly feel like they would, then this engages in faulty reasoning and borders on being viciously circular in one's reasoning as opposed to virtuous circular reasoning. Furthermore, a person claiming the Book of Enoch or Sirach is scripture can make a similar argument and thus makes the debate against these books being canonical become really challenging by forsaking the usage or reference to the early church councils on these topics. Another tactic could be that there was nothing wrong with the choices at this council, which then shows inconsistency in understanding the councils since these weren't ecumenical councils and were much lesser in the scope of their power and reception.

    Christians will then have to consider being consistent with their skepticism and consider Marcion of Sinope as the subject of the canon relates. What if Marcion was correct and we have simply been listening to the lies of the church from Fathers like Tertullian or Ephiphanius? Some will suggest that Tertullian exposed the false teachings of Marcion in his multiple writings against him, but this begs the question for the radically skeptic individual as to knowing if they are reliable. If Augustine was able to "distort" the teachings and words of Pelagius, then how do we know that Tertullian (who eventually fell into heresy) didn't just do something similar? If one then appeals to the councils mentioned above, then this would have to put their trust in the council of Ephesus too in order to be consistent with accepting church councils, especially ecumenical ones, or to simply show inconsistency in their picking and choosing of the ecumenical councils while favoring the non ecumenical ones.

    Some have tried to appeal to the fact that Pelagius has stated that he was having his teachings distorted by Augustine and others due to "fake news" about him. If we go by this testimony, why not then appeal to the testimony of Arius regarding his condemnation at the Council of Nicea? In his letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia, we read the following: "The bishop  is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil.  Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son;” “as soon as the Father, so soon the Son;” “with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting;” “God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;” “always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself.” Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out”, others that he was an “emanation”, still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.”... But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full of grace and truth, God, the only-begotten, unchangeable."

    If we go by this, he claims that he doesn't say that Christ was not unbegotten, but begotten. This is the orthodox view since Jesus is the begotten Son of God. Elsewhere, we read in the Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen the following creedal statement from Book II, Chapter 27: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten from Him before all ages, God the Word, by whom all things were made, whether things in heaven or things on earth; He came and took upon Him flesh, suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven, whence He will again come to judge the quick and the dead." According to the Semi-Pelagian theologian, Phillip van Limborch, we read the following from page 24 of Volume I of his "The History of the Inquisition": "His affirming therefore that the Son had a beginning was only saying, that he was in the whole of His existence from the Father, as the Origin and Fountain of his Being and Deity, and not any denial of his being from before all Times and Ages... or his being completely God himself, or his being produced after a more excellent manner than the creatures..."

    It is with these statements that have led some to speculate that the conclusions of Arius as a heretic are unfounded and are therefore the results of rumors and lies spread about his name. We have seen this similarly stated by those today who continue to defend Pelagius on similar grounds. Some might say that we have the writings of Arius where he reveals and slips up elsewhere on his teachings, but then the same is said as well regarding Pelagius' writings with the letter to Demetrius being the one key letter that reveals the heretical problems with Pelagius' theology. Yet while the case can be made from the writings of Pelagius, to dismiss the charge of heresy against him is to also put in a doubt on the Spirit of God within the church. In other words, it is to suggest that at some point, the church as a whole became anathema or unreliable without the guidance of the Holy Spirit involved.

    One's theology must not just involve that with God, but also as it relates to the church since it is through the church that one receives the Gospel, the Bible, and Communion. The Holy Spirit operates through the believers and as a result, operates through the church. To suggest that an ecumenical council was in error is to suggest that the Spirit has left and abandoned the church, especially since the church's decision was the result of agreed consensus by 200 bishops of the church worldwide. Hopefully, these people will study more and repent of any errors that lead them to defend the doctrine of Pelagius, a heretic considered anathema by the church, guided by the Spirit.

A Gospel Centered Approach to Islam: A Case against the Polemical Approach

(This is an old essay from an issue of the Defender Times from October 2020)

    The one thing that I am passionate about is evangelism to various different groups of people so that they may repent of their sins and come to know salvation through Jesus Christ. Whenever it came to evangelism and other Christians, I always had problems with those who never really made any actual effort to preach the Gospel. Some would just say “you are a sinner and you are going to Hell” with no follow up on how to be saved. There was no identification of what the good news of the Gospel was. It was either just the bad news or polemical insults to degrade the individual or the worldview in question. These people showed no real sincere interest in reaching out to see people come to Christ, but instead they wanted to merely destroy the religion so that only one option can be removed, but other options are considered “better” compared to being a Muslim.

    Whenever it comes to polemical approaches, I will certainly have an issue. Whenever I see some of these type of people like Christian Prince & Rob Christian on YouTube, they seem to express a means to only reflect distaste for a religion and feeling the need to encourage people to behave “consistently” with their religion or to stop being a Muslim. However, these approaches breed nothing but a sharing of similar tactics that militant atheists use for the sake of mocking a religion and nothing more. Christians should be called to a higher standard than this. Some that use a polemical approach of insults and condescending tones, yet have intentions to see people come to Jesus Christ, are found in people like David Wood, Jay Smith and Sam Shamoun.

    The purpose then would be for this essay to help explain that we as Christians do not and should not cave in to polemical approaches since this would be behaving like the world and acting contrary to what the Scriptures command our defense of the faith to be. We will also answer the counter objections they respond with as some will do their best to try and justify displaying behavior that shouldn’t even be performed by the body of Christ in representing and honoring our Lord. This is not meant to be an attack piece or a hate filled rant. This is meant to show a mere representation of the open rebuke that the Bible describes as “better than secret love” in Proverbs 27:5. If anything, the words that are to come about from this are to merely show love and care for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who adopt a polemical approach in Christian Apologetics. To any Muslim who reads this that might think that this means I am disowning the brothers as being “no longer Christians”, then I am sorry, but you will not find there. So I suggest you go look elsewhere.

    Whenever we read of the scriptures giving a command to be giving a defense of the faith, it says we are to do so with “meekness and fear” as 1 Peter 3:15. However, in the translation of the CSB (my favorite translation besides the KJV), it accurately translates it in the modern day terms to mean “do this with gentleness and respect.” What is the purpose for this? Well as 1 Peter 3:16 says, it is so that we who have “a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” So when we apply this principle in our apologetics against Muslims and some respond with harshness and condescending behaviors, they are put to shame by their own deeds in front of people. Not because of your polemics, but merely by their own foolishness and accusations. I remember that I had a similar experience with a Muslim (we shall call him “Marshall”) several times who was showing problems. Not only did I answer his objections with gentleness, but I was able to gently point out his inconsistent errors, like how he claimed God flooding people is a wicked and evil action that no God would ever do. Once he was shown that was also in the Quran, he slowly started to go silent and show himself to be put to shame by his own pride. Another one was with a Muslim named Mansur, a popular apologist at Speakers Corner. Mansur was asking about the Trinity and while I responded, he just decided to act like I wasn’t answering him as he tried to misrepresent what I actually said. Not only was his reasoning shown to be fallacious, but his behavior was even rebuked by some of the twitter Muslims. Never be surprised at what gentleness and respect can bring about.

    A further examination of scripture will point out that we are commanded to behave gently to the world in general and not just in the realm of apologetics. In 2 Timothy 2:24-26, we read the following in the CSB translation: “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance leading them to the knowledge of the truth. Then they may come to their senses and escape the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.” The Lord’s servant is said that he must “be gentle to everyone” whenever he is teaching. The Lord’s servant must be patient to those he is witnessing to. The Lord’s servant must be instructing his opponents with gentleness. Without these traits, we are not being faithful to scripture and as a result, we are no longer showing honor to Christ and his apostles. When we do so, we help build a case for people to “come to their senses and escape the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.” Now consider finally what Galatians 5:22-23 says whenever it deals with the fruit of the spirit in the born again believer: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” Paul gives a clear list of all the different signs or evidence of the spirit in the Christian. One of these signs is gentleness as well as longsuffering. So gentleness and patience are to be seen and displayed in our conduct not just to Muslims, but to everybody in general when we engage in a defense of the faith or a basic evangelism demonstration to promote and share the good news of the Gospel. We are also to show “meekness” which is another way of saying “gentleness”. Thus it is clear from these scriptures and various others that we are to display a particular behavior and attitude whenever we witness, debate and preach to anybody. We are not to act like jerks with rude attitudes and behaviors that mimic the style of the world.

    Next we respond to some of the defenses made to justify the behavior they give. One of the most common ones is “well, the prophets weren’t friendly.” This is refuted immediately by the fact that we aren’t prophets and we aren’t called to be that way. We are held by the scripture of the New Covenant and as a result of that, we are under the New Covenant’s orders for us Chrisitans. We already read what some of those commands are and they cannot be ignored if you truly claim and actually follow after Christ as Lord when you submit to His Lordship. Even more so, to help further drive the point on about the New Covenant, we are no longer under the Old Covenant. For if we are, we would still be under the Mosaic Law as a result of this.

    Another response by those in the crowd of the snarky apologetics approach usually refers to Jesus in Matthew 23:33 when he says “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” So whenever we hear this language being used by Jesus and we always hear that phrase about “what would Jesus do,” we end up thinking that it’s permissible to imitate all the things Jesus did. This isn’t necessarily the case as the Bible is quite clear on what we covered earlier and we are not Jesus. Jesus did things like forgive sins to the point that the sins were no longer considered in judgement. This is said to be only something Jesus can do as the Son of Man (which the Jews considered his statement to be blasphemy when he said such a thing). Also, we are commanded directly by divinely inspired apostles to be gentle and humble, such as what Ephesians 4:2 tells us. So regardless of what Jesus did, we are to keep to and obey the words of the scriptures when it comes to the New Testament’s teachings for New Covenant adherents known as the Christians.

    A final point usually made is more so an appeal to emotions when they say “well the Muslim apologists will act means and rude to us, therefore we should give them a taste of their own medicine.” They essentially are going back to an Old Covenant treatment of the subject with eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. However, Jesus quotes this passage and responds by saying we should turn the other cheek. In Matthew 5:38-39 we read the following: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Essentially, we are to not respond with the same kind of hate or mistreatment they offer. We are instead to show the fruit of the spirit through a gentle response that cuts their objections apart through God’s Word.

    So in the final analysis, we should remember that we are not to behave like the world. We are to act in obedience with Christ and the commands of the New Covenant. We are to display an apologetic that actually honors Christ with how we represent Him today.